Citation information

Abstract

The conclusion of this paper is that a code based on social contract theory is not only
indicated by the argument provided above, but will also assist in providing practical
moral guidance. It is argued that such a code will necessarily be one that
is not a mere list of good practices, but one that provides principles that
need to be applied (or interpreted in a given situation) to provide moral
insight.

Professional ethics typically manifests as normative guidelines describing the
proper conduct expected from professionals. Professional status stems from extended
education and training in a specific discipline that permit an individual to execute
specialized tasks in society, where members of the society, due a lack of similar skills,
have no option but to rely on the work of the professional. Codes of conduct are
derived from various ethics theories with (professional) duty, (utilitarian) fairness and
notions of professionalism (virtues) usually all present to a greater or lesser extent.
Such codes typically also include some requirements of allegiance to the
profession as well as submission to sanctions by professional bodies. Codes
worth exploring for such examples range from ancient texts, such as the
Hippocratic Oath and more modern codes in the domain of forensic science,
with prominent examples being those of the AAFS, ASCLD, GIAC and
SANS.

Distilling professional codes of conduct to their bare essence usually yields two
elements: (1) The need to act with integrity and (2) to act to the best of
ones ability where the ability is expected to be at a very high levela level
that justifies the professional epithet. This paper argues that this second
requirement is insufficient for forensics, in general, and digital forensics, in
particular.

The basis of the papers thesis is the fact that forensics is a family of applied
sciences. Ethics in science is a topic that has been studied from multiple perspectives:
impact of research on participants, potential scientific bias of researchers (due to
commercial, authority-related, gender-based and other influences that the researcher
may be unaware of) and the expected behavior of the scientist. This paper takes its
primary cue from this third category. Again, once distilled, it is clear that
the primary demand on the scientist is to act with integrity. However, the
paper argues that there are subtle differences between the expectations of
integrity in the scientific and professional contexts. The forensic scientist has to
conform to both flavors of integrity. Finally, the subject matter of the digital
forensic scientist adds a third flavor of integrity that constrains his or her
actions.

Above the phrase flavor of integrity was used to imply that the concept
of integritynebulous as it may be remains the same. However, what one
emphasizes about it may differ from instance to instance. The (Platonic)
ideal form of science is one that searches for the truth above everything else.
Hence integrity in a scientific endeavor refers to choices that seek the truth
above all else. Note that scientific integrity does not require the achievement
of this ideal (which is impossible), but a dedication to seeking truth. At
first glance the dedication to truth seems that an imperative approach to
forensic ethics is appropriate. However, from Kant we know that autonomy is
required for a deontic approach. While the forensic scientist should not be
constrained in seeking the truth, this scientist is bound by science and hence total
autonomy is not an option. Similarly, seeking truth is a virtue that suggests an
Aristotelian approach. However, Aristotles focus on a golden mean is inappropriate.
Similarly, balancing outcomes in consequentialist theories renders utilitarianism
impractical.

The paper suggests that the difficulty to find a home for forensic science in the
best-known classical ethics theories stems from the fact that that forensics potentially
exerts control over the individual by helping to determine guilt or innocence (keeping
in mind it is not only the guilty who stand accused of wrongdoings). And this power
may be sovereign. This suggests social contract theory as a key element of
determining appropriate ethical behavior of forensic science (and, ultimately, the
forensic scientist). Given that Rawlss seminal work already straddles constraint of
power through social contract theory and the domain of ethics, this approach is an
obvious theory here.

The forensic power increases in the case of digital evidence. While forensic science
makes truth claims about related to human, the digitalization of the everyday causes
digital forensic power to permeate the individuals essence. This is cause for the clear
balance of power and purpose.